I thought I had written a post about this, but after rummaging through my older posts, it appears I haven’t. So here goes.
One of the big problems in the Field is that those of us interested in “standard” Scientology have to rely on the recommendations of others. This is in sharp contrast to how it was done at one point within the Church of Scientology. In the olden days, “franchises” (now called “missions”) were relatively plentiful, and not regulated because– let’s face it– you just couldn’t regulate field activities. But at some point, Ron saw the need for “Central Organizations” (called today just “Organizations”) as a central point of quality and “brand identification” for the public. Central Orgs were where missions sent their tough cases, and where mission auditors went to get trained.
Now of course, the Church is a disaster area. What you get may or may not be Standard Tech. Good luck.
For we who have disavowed ourselves of the Church, there are few “Central Orgs” operating independently of the Church. And yet the need for quality control is still there, perhaps even more so. There are a great many practitioners in the field who believe they have a better idea than LRH, and are auditing, but not using the Tech that LRH developed for this purpose. Hence, finding a “standard” auditor in our Field is, to some degree, a game of chance. This is a situation I, and others like me, would like to see resolved.
Here’s the way it currently works. Let’s say you’re a PC who wants to engage the services of a “standard” auditor. Right now, you contact a friend or two in the Field. They ask around and get their best recommendation for someone relatively close to you. You hope the person your friend talked to knows what they’re talking about. This is a pretty iffy way to go about this. You look up this auditor and meet with him. You see Church certificates on the wall for the various levels he has completed. But those certificates were issued by the Church, and in addition to the Church having canceled them, you don’t know which iteration of the Tech they come from. So basically, they’re useless. What you’d like to see is that someone else vouched for this person’s Tech, someone relatively recent and at least as well trained. Preferably someone you trust. But nothing like this is currently set up.
Let me suggest an alternative which might work for now. Let’s say your auditor, Alex, has a certificate or letter on his wall, signed by Brian, saying that Brian has checked out Alex’s tech for your level, and has verified that it is good. That is, Brian vouches for Alex. When I say “vouches for”, I mean, “Has seen example(s) of his Tech application for Level X and believes it demonstrates full mastery and application of Standard Tech”.
Let’s say that, if you start tracking this down, you find that Brian has similar certifications on his wall saying that Charlie vouches for his tech. And if you go to Charlie’s house, you find that Charlie is vouched for by David, who’s vouched for by Ed, who’s vouched for by Frank, etc. etc.
This is a “chain of trust”. The entity that vouches for someone could be an actual Academy somewhere which trained them, or just another auditor or C/S. But in any case, it would be more than just a casual, “Oh, he’s a friend of mine who never talks bad about LRH, so he’s okay”. It has to be someone who’s actually witnessed the person’s tech and seen for himself that the tech is “standard”.
This “chain of trust” is a relatively primitive method of ensuring quality, but could work for a far-flung Field with few actual installations to do formal certifications. It has one major weakness: certifications like this can’t last forever. What if the guy’s tech slides away from being “standard” over time? Without periodic review, you’d still see the same certificates on the wall, but after a time, they might not mean much. (Back in the days of real Orgs, a bad auditor auditing in the HGC would be caught eventually by the C/S and corrected.) It’s for certain that some auditors will have back-off on having to be re-certified, not because they’re getting things wrong, but because it’s not all that easy to put together a disc showing a video of the meter, the worksheets, and the PC for a variety of actions.
Here’s where a website for this purpose would come in. This might well be called “Chain of Trust Version 2.0”. In this case, each auditor’s name (or “handle” or whatever) would be listed. Those vouching for him would have their names connected to his, along with their attestations that his tech was good at Level X, and the date. You could follow the “chain of trust” all the way down in one place. You could see where he had re-certified, possibly with different people at different times. If there was an unresolved problem, a C/S or other certifier could have remarks about it, which would stay on the site until the auditor had been corrected. Then the correction could be attested to along with the date. This would be a sort of “qual registry” for Field auditors.
One other potential problem remains. It has been suggested that some, fearing Church reprisals, will want to operate under the radar. That is, no name given. In this case, it could be that the person is assigned a code name for the purpose of appearing on the site. The site owner could be queried about this person’s identity. The site owner would then get credentials of the requesting party, and pass them on to the “mystery” person and that person could investigate the requester further before revealing his/her identity. This could theoretically be done with a minimum of fuss to the site owner.
In any case, this is the best system I can think of for at least attempting some sort of quality control on the Tech in the Field. Currently Milestone Two has supposedly set up an internal system which performs this function, or at least something close to it. I’m not privy to this system, how it operates or who’s involved. So I can’t vouch for their system, even though I would generally vouch for Milestone Two as a standard-seeking organization.
So there you have it. If you have a better idea, post it for discussion. If you can think of refinements or improvements, same answer.